Hi Friends – as you know the Philadelphia Inquirer has hired John Yoo as a columnist. This is my letter to them. You can write to them as well. Here is the link that shows you how.

Dear Editor,

In hiring John Yoo as a columnist, you have given him a platform to advocate for torture and to continue his campaign to absolve himself of any responsibility for the torture policy he helped create. Until the past eight years, torture was not an “issue” and there was no “debate” about it. It ,along with slavery and genocide, is considered “jus cogens”, a crime so beyond the pale that it is always considered illegal. It was and remains illegal in both American law and international law to which America is signatory.

A concerted political juggernaut of obfuscation, baseless assertions, lies and damn lies has been very successful in convincing large portions of the public that euphemisms like “enhanced interrogation techniques” are not torture and that torture has been effective in protecting national security. This has had the cumulative effect of normalizing what is ineffective, illegal and a moral catastrophe.

In hiring John Yoo, The Philadelphia Inquirer is contributing to the normalization of torture.

With sincerity, disgust and absolutely no surprise at all,

Bonnie Tamres- Moore

Applicable International and American Law

“Geneva Conventions” – ratified by the U.S. 1955 “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture”

“United Nations Convention Against Torture” - ratified by the U.S. 1994 “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - ratified by the U.S. 1948

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - ratified by the U.S. 1992

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

The Constitution

Amendment IV – Probable Cause

Amendment V – Due Process

Amendment VI – Speedy Trial by jury of peers

Amendment VIII – No cruel and unusual punishment

The Army Field Manual “It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to place a prisoner under physical or mental duress, torture or any other form of coercion in an effort to secure information.”

Uniform Code of Military Justice

The McCain Amendment, signed into law in 2005 (which says that soldiers must treat prisoners according to the rules delineated in the Army Field Manual) President Bush attached a signing statement to the McCain Amendment which stated that he may disregard it.

The 1996 War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441) (makes not following Geneva 3 a crime)

The Federal Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture.

WASHINGTON — An internal Justice Department inquiry into the conduct of Bush administration lawyers who wrote secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations has concluded that the authors committed serious lapses of judgment but should not be criminally prosecuted, according to government officials briefed on a draft of the findings.

Ostensibly, Yoo, an attorney for the Office of Legal Counsel and Bybee, that section's chief, were tasked by Attorney General John Ashcroft with determining whether so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" violated U.S. law and treaty obligations. But a draft report, prepared by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Review, suggests that, at the direction of the White House, the OLC worked to justify a policy that had already been determined and did not begin their inquiry from a neutral position.

It is not clear -- and sources would not say -- who in the White House communicated with the two lawyers about the memos, and it is not clear whether Yoo or Bybee felt unduly pressured to provide a legal framework for a decision already made by senior administration officials.

The AP reported that an early version of the draft recommended that the California State Bar Association seek the disbarment of Yoo, now a Berkeley law professor, and Bybee, an appellate judge. A Justice Department official said that the final decision had not been made.